About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN2 33
LANGUAGE
English 33
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33
and military strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. if confirmed, general dempsey, who currently serves as army chief of staff, will succeed admiral mike mahlon who will retire a the end of september. a democrat carl levin chairs the senate armed services committee. >> good morning everybody. the committee meets this morning to consider the nomination ofmo general martin dempsey to bethii chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. it was not long ago that general dempsey came before us for his nomination hearing to become ago chief of staff of the army. we welcome him back. thanks again for his 36 years o dedicated service to the nation and his willingness to serve asm the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. as we know from those decades of service, general dempsey is an exceptionally well qualified american soldier and leader.al we we were reminded of the last hearing, hell is also a proud we we husband, father and grandfathero huand,l dempsey, will you remain grateful for the sacrifices that you and your family have made over the years, for the devotion of your beloved wife and the military se
with the u.s. involvement in afghanistan and iraq. and as we'll hear from general d dudick, there's 400,000 in afghanistan. and the u.s.-led training effort is now as of this week 157,000 police, the cost of this training to the united states alone is about a billion dollars a month. today police assistance programs for the united states government are a multibillion dollar effort led by the department of defense and the department of state but involving a number of other federal agencies. as programs have grown in size and in costs they've also grown in kind. as you saw from the opening photo exhibition running here on the screens, policing around the world is heavily impacted by history, by culture, by legal systems, and by levels of development. the police force is different markedly by country, u.s. police assistance differs markedly by agent and by agency in the countries in which they are working. so today, we have assembled a panel of very distinguished experts to discuss the various experts that the united states government takes in approaching those countries. you have th
will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. nobody believes or hopes that will happen. it has not been requested by the president. no one intends to spend that money. in fact, the president's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be over the next decade, that instead we will spend about $600 billion. that's what the president's budget says. that's what people assume. this means that senator reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that's not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. why? because it's money that's not planning to be spent. it's a little like a family saying let's assume we're going to take a vacation we're never nefer going to take and it's going to cost $10,000, and them saying we saved $10,000 on our basketball. i wish it weren't so. i wish the $1.1 trillion was credible spending reductions we could rely on but "the washington post," "the wall street journal," many other observers have looked at this and said frankly it's not meaning a meaningful
, reduced spending on the wars in afghanistan and iraq and through targeted cuts to mandatory spending. it doesn't raise taxes and it doesn't touch medicare, medicaid or social security. again, this is not a perfect plan. i have been on the floor many times in favor of a balanced package that includes cuts to spending, domestic, defense and mandatory, but also includes increased revenues. the reid princess plan doesn't e those goals -- the reid plan doesn't achieve those goals but i hope we will get there eventually. this is not a proposal i would have written, but i'm one of more than 100 members of the senate and more than 535 members of congress, and i don't get everything i want. none of us here in congress get everything we want. that's the nature of compromise. that's the nature of democracy, and that's why the framers of the constitution created checks and balances in government. that's why they created two chambers in congress and three branches of government, and when you're a leader in government, you just don't have the luxury of drawing a line in the sand and walking away.
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get our country back on the path to
savings on the mandatory side and savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. these are savings that cbo scores of about a trillion dollars, that cbo scoring them at a trillion dollars. now we know some republicans will quibble over the savings but they have no leg to stand on. though war is the second-biggest policy driver of the deficit after the bush tax cuts. if conducting the war ads to the debt, it is undeniable winding down the war deliver savings. the administration tells us with the wind down their putting in place in the iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war on about $630 billion over the next decade. cbo, however, assumes 1.67 trillion in war funding for 2021. by adopting the administration's lower number, we can save over a trillion. we know the republicans agree with this because they included the exact same savings in the wrong and budget that passed the house. i never criticized such accounting then and it's hard to see how they could do so now. last, senator reid's proposal allows a joint committee that has the potential to achieve e
the wars in iraqnd and afghanistan, which the republicans are calling a budgetary gimmick and not real savings. the yet, the ryan budget, which almost a every house and senate republican voted for, counted the same cuts almost identically. so, they say it is real savings to thee ryan plan with state savings in the reid proposal.-- i am sorry, but you can't have it both ways. reid' further, senator reid's plan actually is all cuts. i don't necessarily like that. contains dollar for dollar spending cuts to match the debtt ceiling increase. mh as much as i don't like this aspect of it, it doesn't include any revenues. even though a "washington post" abc newsabc poll said that 72% f the american public believes we should have those makingma over. $250,000 pay more. 72%.lo what republicans haveng wanted l along and now we are giving it to wen them. and all of the cuts and plans up and supported by republicans in the past. so, we are presentingse a plan that is all cuts, no revenue. the pretense that they are using to reject it just doesn't pass the j smell test. and according to cbo, it sav
on a firing line somewhere in afghanistan realizing today could be their last day on this earth so america can live to see another day. that's how serious the consequences are. so, mr. president, i would suggest that instead of being paralyzed by our analysis of where we differ, let's become analysis of where we find common ground and we do on not raising the debt ceiling. we know we should raise it. we know we can find up to $2.8 trillion, and hopefully more, in cuts in the deficit and spending over time. we know for a fact we have to extend the debt ceiling to some point in time. and if it's passed -- past the presidential election of 2012, let's ensure that each body in regular order can vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. which leaves us with one difference and that difference is what is the enforcement mechanism on the $1.8 trillion cut that the joint committee, equally divided, is supposed to come on? i submit we can find the common ground to find the silver bullet that causes that to happen. and i would encourage all of us to forget now where we differ, to recogniz
military to be getting the news in afghanistan and iraq of all the upheaval in washington, because they're getting the news, of course. and for them to worry, oh, my gosh what happens august 2 if my paycheck isn't there or my wife or my husband -- for my wife or my husband to be able to use that to pay our mortgage or the basic expenses? i just want to put it in perspective here. we have people in the military with boots on the ground by the thousands that are making under $20,000 a year. now, those are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. they don't have the luxury of having a big savings account with that kind of income, and especially if they've got children. my goodness, they're making under $18,000 a year, some of these younger junior members of the enlisted corps. so i don't think we ought to make them worry for ten seconds if they can pay their basic bills for their housing and the food for their families. in my state of texas, there are 28,000 brave men and women deployed in the support of operations in iraq and afghanistan. there are more than 97,000 service members depl
these savings from withdrawing from iraq and afghanistan. and essential education, job creation, housing, and environmental investments where america's economic recovery and for our strong economic future would be protected from the slashing cuts proposed by the house republicans. the irony is, republican leaders previously have backed all the spending reductions called for in leader reid's plan. now, i don't agree -- and i suspect all of us don't agree with all aspects of this proposed solution. but we're not going to have 100 solutions on this floor. we're going to have one that we can vote on. i wish this would have included new revenue, especially by ending such costly and outdated tax benefits as those still enjoyed by the biggest oil companies to help us pay off our debt even more quickly. i'd like to help pay for the debt incurred by the inexcusable earlier decisions to enter two wars without paying for them. and i continue to believe the surcharge for the wealthiest would mean that they would pay more of their fair share after so many years of tax cuts that have tilted far more t
benefits to veterans or paychecks for the men and women wearing our country's uniform in afghanistan and iraq. i want to be clear. a default will injure america's reputation throughout the world. it will weaken faith in the world's most respected financial power, leaving our country's financial leadership in doubt. simply put, defaulting on the debt could trigger an economic collapse of historic proportion. that's why i plead with our republican colleagues, join us without delay in adopting majority leader reid's plan. senator reid's plan will provide certainty for middle-class americans and to the markets because it will provide stability, that's what we need right now through 2013. mr. president, this plan isn't perfect. in fact, including me, believe it should include revenues. it doesn't but that's why it's called a compromise. and after we adopt this plan and step back from the brink, we need to work on a balanced approach to get our country back on sound economic footing, and it means asking the wealthiest among to us pay their fair share. i was one of those who was very fortun
have had their fill of catastrophe and near catastrophe. recently in afghanistan, admiral mullen, chairman of our joint chiefs, was asked by troops if they'll be paid next month. his answer was, "i honestly can't answer that question." admiral mullen had to tell the troops, "i'd like to give you a better answer than that right now. i just honestly don't know." mr. president, it is inconceivable to me that we will leave our troops in limbo by driving our country over the cliff of default. our nation's economic life is in peril. i don't remember ever in the 32 years that i've been here is our nation more in need of deliberation, statesmanship and compromise. "the new york times" columnist david brooks, who is a conservative columnist, recently wrote that too many republicans seem to have joined a movement -- his word -- in which -- quote -- "the members do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter what the terms." close quote. i hope that some of our republican colleagues will prove mr. brooks wrong on this matter because of its huge significance. the time for ignoring hard tru
of iraq and afghanistan. those costs are coming down. the president had projected they would come down to $50 billion soon and would stay at that the rest of the year, which would mean $1 trillion less spending. remember, we're going to increase debt by $9 trillion to $13 trillion, but $1 trillion would have been the war. by reducing the war costs down, you save a trillion dollars. but that was already in the books. that's already estimated. and so how did they do it? well, they came in and they put in a bill that mandated it to come down because, oddly enough, the congressional budget office doesn't assume the war costs will come down. the congressional budget office assumes that it will stay up and we'll spend this trillion dollars more on the war, when there's no intent to do that. president bush wouldn't have spent that much money. and, therefore, they put it in the legislation and require it to come down to these numbers, and all of a sudden c.b.o. scores a trillion dollars extra savings. well, any change in spending projections or reality at all, speaker boehner didn't count his
, not talking about wars in iraq and afghanistan, not talking about natural disasters, disease, epidemics, not famine. i'm talking about our national debt. our national debt is the threat. it is the great e threa greatesr national security. i'll tell you this isn't a problem for one party, the other party, it is a problem for all of us as americans. now, i'm not the only one that's saying it. actually, the chairman of the -- of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, has said the most significant threat, the most significant threat to our nation's security is our debt. let me repeat, the most significant threat to our national security is the debt. you may notice, mr. president, that admiral mullen makes no mention at all of the debt ceiling. the presiding officer: would the senator from wyoming cease for a minute. could we have order, please. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming may continue. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as i was saying, you will note that admiral mullen makes -- makes no mention at all
to go to for jihadists and afghanistan, iran, excuse me, afghanistan, iraq, pakistan or yemen but as many as two dozen muslim americans and al-shabaab with many cases trained by al qaeda leaders remain unaccounted for. the committee has found that all chabad related federal prosecutions for funding, recruiting and attempting to join al-shabaab are the largest number and most significant upward trend in the terror cases filed for the justice department over the past two years. least 38 cases have been unsealed since 2009. minnesota, ohio, california, new jersey, new york, illinois, alabama, virginia and texas three al-shabaab is recruiting inside american mosques and disalle communities like minneapolis and san diego. according to the justice department. this month and also of recruiter pleaded guilty to a recording a large group of muslims from minneapolis at mosques and without any known protest moscow's leaders. a top also leader in somalia supervised this recruiting. one minnesota recruited was a suicide bomber whose 2008 attack on northern somalia send shock waves of alarm
social security but not the wife of a soldier in afghanistan. that's not such a good idea. maybe we won't pay the veterans benefit. we'll pay the idea. not such a good idea. what about those 12 million to 15 million students head ofd to college in the next few weeks with a student grant or staopbt loan from the federal government?shall we pay those je public colleges take care of their own? you see what can happen if we had a country, especially a country like the united states, which instead of paying all of its obleses on time, whether it is to china or japan or grandma or to the veteran, that we begin to selectively pay those bills when we had the money. i think i know what would happen. instead of being able to borrow money for ten years at 3%, we might have to pay a little more for it. let's say it just went from 3% to 4%, what would mean to us? it would mean, according to the congressional budget office, that the taxpayers would have to pay $1.3 trillion more in interest over ten years. so if it goes up to 5%, that's twice that. or it goes up to 3% -- that's what happens when you
iraq and afghanistan sooner than many here would like or that the president would like, and save substantial sums if we do that. most certainly if we're going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we do have to ask billions, despite all of their power and all of their campaign contributions and all of their lobbying, maybe the billionaires who are doing phenomenally well may have to contribute to deficit reduction. yes, maybe those companies that stash their money in tax hyphens in pwerpld and the cayman eye hraldz -- in bermuda and the cayman islands, maybe they are going to have to start paying their fair share. on my web site which is sanders.senate.gov, i put a small letter which said to the president, mr. president, stand tall. take on these right-wing ideologues who want to make devastating cuts to working families. and in a couple of weeks we have 135,000 signatures on that letter, and i think that letter reflects what the american people want. they want shared sacrifice. they do not want to see the elderly, the kids or working families being battered more and more, es
though some would argue that it's the iraq and afghanistan war winddown savings that you would get, but whatever it is, it is larger than the house proposal and use that as the first cut by lifting the debt ceiling. but there would be a sequence of events that would happen after that to avoid what the senate democrats do not want, that the markets and the rating agencies cause the debt instruments, the u.s. treasury bills, to be downgraded, there needs to be certainty for those rating agencies for the united states government debt. and it could be achieved this way. that you have a brac-like committee, that being a committee that would be composed equally of republicans and democrats that would come up with a package that would then come back to each house, no amendments, up-or-down vote. but that the fail-safe backup in case that that committee were not able to come to agreement, or in the event that it came back to both houses and one of the houses did not pass it, that you would then have the mcconnell proposal which is that the president would request the increase of the debt a
assistance force, isaf, and u.s. forces afghanistan. the president expressed his full confidence in general allen as he begins this important assignment and that he said he looks forward to working closely with him. and with that i will take your questions. >> i want to follow-up on something the president said. he claimed to call speaker boehner and the other leaders after the house vote to resume meetings here, is that right? should we respect resumption a daily meeting? >> no, i think the president will call speaker boehner, based on what he said. he will call the leaders and arrange for a time for a meeting to happen here at the white house. is not a series of meetings budget sometime in the next few days. >> he also made note at the end there that is in progress or agreement with the concept of six or seven senators, how is the white house expects what this again is think to have an impact on the house republican? >> the news from the gang of six/seven italy a significant because it dramatized and reinforces the fact that the only way to deal a significant deficit reduction bill is to
proposal. why? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan wh
's cuts come from drawing down in afghanistan and in iraq. and while were all like to end these conflicts as soon as we possibly can, and with success, harry reid's saving assuming the cost of the war our endeavor. woman already start to draw down in both of these regions. it's almost like saying that we will save trillions of dollars by promising not to invade canada. it's never going to happen. i can't support any plan that begins with the assumption that we have to raise the debt limit and yet doesn't offer a fundamental restructuring of government spending habits. i won't do it. and while i embrace the principles of cut, cap and balance, the bill simply did not go far enough to fundamentally restructure the way that this city stands the american people's money. and it allowed for an increase in the debt limit, something i simply won't do. i also believe that we must repeal and defund obamnicare as part of any solution to our current debt crisis. by? because obamacare is the largest spending and entitlement program ever passed in our nation's history. and it is widely unpopular with pe
to the president of the united states, as an example, we want you to continue to wage war in afghanistan at the cost of $10 billion a month, this president knows that he will have to borrow about $4 billion a month to meet that congressional appropriation. you see, we borrow about 40 cents for every dollar we spend. similarly, when it comes to the payments that we make to our veterans, who are disabled, we have promised them we will pay you, because you served our country and you lost a limb or you were injured and we will compensate you for that loss for the rest of your life. we need in making that commitment that we're also making a commitment to borrow the money necessary to do it. so periodically a president will come to congress and say, i understand our obligations which you have sent to me and i have approved, and now i ask you to extend my authority to borrow the money to meet those obligations. that has happened 89 times since 1939. since we passed this law, presidents of both parties have come to congress and asked for that authority. and aceman as i mentioned, not d congress
with bills and insurance companies. soldiers, in too many cases returning from iraq and afghanistan, are facing even greater challenges in the working market. i was at youngstown university talking, there are programs there, there's a group through magnet in youngstown in northeast ohio about putting -- getting -- helping soldiers and sailors and marines leaving the service, integrating into the classroom and helping them find jobs in that region, someplace we've fallen woefully short. manufacturing, which was moving along steadily earlier this year, we had seen 12, 13, 14, 15 months of job growth in manufacturing, not enough job growth but some, that's even slowing down. steps taken through the auto rescue and other things we did in the last couple of years dealing with this terrible, terrible recession created in 2007 and 2008 the auto rescue saved millions -- auto rescue and other efforts saved millions of americans from joining the unemployment rolls and we're seeing a better auto industry, an auto industry coming back, especially in places like defiance and toledo and northwood
spending at all levels, including the military, as we bring our troops home from afghanistan. and, yes, it needs to look at the money that we spend through our tax code -- and we've talked about this over and over again. we need to have a balanced approach, a credible approach to manage our debt. and that should be our first option. but under no circumstances should we allow america to default on its obligations, causing harm to every american family. i urge-colleagues to put the national -- i urge my colleagues to put the national interests first, to take off the table the default on our debt, take that off the table, let's put the national interest first, work together to bring about a credible plan to manage our national debt. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and suggest the an -- before i do that, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
to pakistan? and afghanistan? why send all of that money over there? get our troops out of all of these other countries that we need them in. germany and philippines and all of the other places anymore. >> host: here's leslie -- excuse me, tammy in leslie, kentucky. >> caller: yes, they need to bring our troops home and stop spending the millions of billions. they need to help out the people on social security. it's hard to make it especially when you have a family. >> host: florida, linda on the independent line. where do things stand with the debt and deficit negotiations? >> caller: i think personally it's all bull crap. you've got people that is -- has been on the social security because they are either disabled or whatever. bring our troops home. we don't need to support pakistan. look what they did to us, we don't need to support iran. bring us home. get us out of that situation. we have people out here that fought for the country. now they are going to suffer because he wants to cut back the social security, medicare, and medicaid? that's nuts. i think just bring our people home. start
the following. you could eliminate all the bush/obama tax cuts. you could pull out of iraq, afghanistan and southwest asia tomorrow. you could end up eliminating all congressional earmarks and you could eliminate all foreign aid which people think is a big number but it's not, that's about 15 to 20% of the problem. the government has grown too big, promised too much, waited too long to restructure. yes, we're going to have to have more revenues as compared to historical levels but we need to go about it in an intelligent way that will make our system fairer, more equitable, more comparative and it will promote job growth and promote innovation. last i think this, on the comeback america initiative, preemptive framework, there's an additional $500 billion for critical investments over the next two years in order to help the economic recovery and to deal with unemployment. nonetheless, the net spending reductions over the next 10 years are over 3 trillion. so, yes, we need to do some things to make sure we recover and get unemployment down but if we don't end up putting our finances in or
currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and people don't seem to forget that. i would not say any prime minister is not fighting for the right people. continues to fight for the right people. >> how would any of those prime ministers ask as editor or chief executive how often or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? would they ask you to spike a story? would that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion of prime minister asked that. >> politicians generally do that? >> no. i can remember many occasions when a cabinet minister or politician or prime minister was very unhappy with stories we were running and -- not that they would ask us not to. >> if they had you would have been interested anyway? >> if the story was true and accurate, no reason for a prime minister -- that is why we have a free press. >> final question. still a feeling that in some way you had a close relationship with the prime minister. the allegation seems to be is no different -- the benefit of what people need to see. you have a close relationship with the prime minister. that was helpful to him and
and afghanistan, saving $1 trillion in the process. our troops in the middle east deserve our admiration and praise for so successfully carrying out their missions. we must, however, continue to press for a strategy that will bring our troops home as soon as we safely can. the reid deficit plan would find an additional $40 billion in savings by cutting fraud and abuse in tax compliance and a number of non-defense federal programs and $60 billion in other savings, including cutting unnecessary spending on agricultural subsidies and auctioning off electromagnetic spectrum that the government currently holds. finally, by cutting the government by over $2 trillion, we'll have to borrow less money than anticipated and that will save an additional $400 million -- sorry, $400 billion in projected interest costs. in total, the senate democratic plan on which we will vote would cut the deficits by $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. while senator reid's proposal would not address the tax gimmicks and loopholes throughout our tax code that help favor the well-connected, this omission does not m
afghanistan and iraq is just not credible. we don't know what the obstacles are going to be in afghanistan and possibly iraq. we also don't know what we might have to do in the middle east going forward. afghanistan is not settled, mr. president, and we have to have a certain level of stability on the ground in afghanistan or we will have wasted the billions that we have already spent and the lives of our military personnel in afghanistan because it will go back to the way it was before, a center for terrorism that will come to our country or can come to our country. it did once already and we have been over there to try to wipe out al qaeda and the taliban, which has been in league with al qaeda. we have been over there losing american lives and spending american taxpayer dollars to protect our country from another 9/11. to say that we're going to cut $1 trillion in the future over the next ten years when we aren't placing the emphasis on what are the conditions on the ground is not sound policy and it's certainly not sound national security policy. so that's illusory. and then the other
-- the senate plan's $1 trillion in savings from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get
abroad in iraq and afghanistan and new entitlement program unpaid for, and a marketplace that instead of being a free market, which i support, became a free-for-all market in which investor decisions end up becoming collective risks to the entire country. and that's what we have been facing. instead of meeting this responsibility, they favor cuts in entitlements to seniors, to the disabled, the families struggling to make ends meet, to students seeking to get the college education that can help fuel america's prosperity. that's what we saw in the house republican budget that passed. but are willing to decimate our nation's economy to protect entitlements for the rich. they've dug in their heels and walled off irresponsible, unnecessary tax breaks for big oil companies. they've walled off entitlements to multibillion-dollar corporations and millionaires who need no entitlements because they believe, blinded by their ideological haze, that the rich are entitleed to their outrageous ways even if it means ballooning the deficit and sending the nation into default on its debt. entitlements
of the money that we are going to save by not continuing operations and iraq and afghanistan for the next ten years at their current level. that that was also in the rhine and budget. as it turns out, the rise in budget receives $2.2 trillion in savings without using that accounting gimmick triet compared to the president's 2011 number, the ryan budget saves $6.2 trillion without using that accounting gimmick. with the ryan budget does -- if you look through the various charts and pages of it -- it also has various comparisons, including pretty much the obligatory comparison to what is called the current law budget that cbo scores, and in that he compared because that's what cbo does the oco cost for the overseas contingency operation cost, but he did not utilize that in order to achieve the savings in his budget. so i had made the same mistakes others had in assuming what we were told was correct. paul ryan made it clear no, that wasn't correct. when we criticized the bill that the majority leader has brought up for use in over a trillion dollars in savings from that oco account, i think we
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33